Category talk:Disputed territories
Deletion proposal I see no need for this category; there are plenty of categories for these "nations" as it is. 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC) :I somehow feel it may be useful to gather the flags of the "second rank nations" in one place, some people could be interested in looking at them. From my point of view, the "Disputed territories" is kinda yet one continent, territories which have similar legitimacy status, instead of having similar geographic position. In fact I think it would be useful to have a template for them. :Plus, I believe it can help avoid accusations in bias. — Hellerick 10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC) ::Well, I brought up a discussion about an official geographic resource not too long ago. Maybe it's time to go to that? Whatever happens, I don't want a second Wikipedia. Yikes! 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :::This seems a worthwhile category to me. The title "disputed territories" is good, because really no one can object to having a "nation" listed here: if the country's status as a "nation" is disupted, then it goes in here. Seems good enough to me. --Bethel23 (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ::::So any nations at VexiWiki:Nations by continent shouldn't be in this list? If that's the case, it should be fine. 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :::::The list has Taiwan, and I already marked it as a "disputed territory". — Hellerick 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, well Taiwan is a disputed territory, but China should also be in the category too. It's not quite as simple as that, FlagFreak. I think that Taiwan counts as a nation, and should be listed in VexiWiki:Nations by continent, as we have all the countries which are mainly recognised by most countries. If you said that any disputed territory can't go on the list, you'd have to axe North Korea, South Korea, China, Taiwan, etc. I think that any territory that is disputed should be in the category. --Bethel23 (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :::::Taiwan does not claim to be a nation. China is a single nation, it's universally recognized truth, supported both in Beijing and Taipei. :::::And if you consider China disputed, you would have to consider Israel disputed as well. I think it's a bad idea. Not to mention that Lichtenstein and Czech Repuliblic refuse to recognise each other ((rolls his eyes)) :::::Both Koreas recognize each other. Just like both Germanys did earlier — there is no dispute there anymore. :::::We should be moderate when deciding whether a territory is disputed or not. E.g. aforementioned Taiwan claims the territory of Mongolia and Russian autonomous republic of Tuva (both were lost 1911, but the Republic of China never acknowledged it), but I'm sure is any of the citizens of these territories is aware that their land is disputed. :::::I like Wikipedia's list of sovereign countries, it looks perfect to me. (Well, maybe several other entities could be added, like Azad Kashmir (Pakistani controlled "Free Kashmir"), or exile governments like Tibet). — Hellerick 10:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Well, according to Wikipedia's List of states with limited recognition North Korea and South Korea don't recognise each other; Liechtenstein refuses to recognise the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and niether of those countries recognise Liechtenstein, either *this category should be a category for all countries with disputes (even if there's only one country objecting). *or it should be for non-UN territories, which are disputed, things like South Ossetia, Taiwan, Abkhazia etc. Otherwise we should scrap the category. I don't particulary mind which one we go for, but we should agree on one of the above. BTW, going off topic slightly, but should Taiwan be listed at VexiWiki:Nations by continent? --Bethel23 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ::If we went with option #1, the category would always be changing. If we went with option #2, then we'd be recognizing the United Nations as the leader of the world or something. I'm definitely against option #2, and also option #1. Although option 1 looks more reasonable, it's still very unreasonable. I vote for "scrapping" the category. We shouldn't have a category just for arguments. 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC) :::What's wrong with #1? They don't change that much. --Bethel23 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC) ::::I favour option #1. I think that bests sorts out the category. --Bethel23 (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC) :::::I do not want VexiWiki to be a GeoWiki. We should be focusing on flags, not politics. 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::The the easiest route is to scrap the category. --Bethel23 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::Scrap it! Scrap it! :) 03:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Why? — Hellerick 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *No need for this category. **Every entity must have an "umbrella" category. In fact I believe we should have a category like "Sovereign countries" (but it is not quite necessary because because de-facto the continent categories act as such). "Disputed territories" is the best umbrella category I can think up for flags as such. — Hellerick 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *This category is causing unnecessary and ugly Wikipedia-style debate. **I don't understand why you hate Wikipedia so much. — Hellerick 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *VexiWiki is not a GeoWiki. **Therefore we should remove the continent templates? — Hellerick 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *It's the easiest option. **The easiest option is to not have any categories at all. — Hellerick 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *It's a category based on disagreements. **It's based on flag-related disagreements that have to be reflected in a Vexillogical encyclopedia. — Hellerick 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *We already have VexiWiki:Nations by continent, which is official. Anything that doesn't follow that guide should not be questioned, therefore this category is even more useless. **If I'm not mistaken VexiWiki:Nations by continent was defining the boundaries of the continents, not their "membership". And even if it did, I don't see what relation it has to the current issue. — Hellerick 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *This category will only cause more debate, which is littering VexiWiki. So again I say, "Scrap it." 15:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC) **As I already mentioned I don't understand why it causes more debates than the category Red background, which is more vague. — Hellerick 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) :::VexiWiki is not Wikipedia. Delete this category. 23:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Trust me, it's much better to argue whether a country is sovereign or disputed than whether it's a country or not a country. The intention of this category is to category is to reduce controversy. If you remove it, you'll get half a dozen debate pages like this one. And not being a Wikipedia has no relation to the issue. — Hellerick 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I honestly don't understand why we can't use common sense to define "disputability" — it worked in Wikipedia, why it can't work here? Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh are matters of debates, and Slovakia and China are not, whether they are recognized by some people or not. The category serves a practical purpose: it's supposed to gather "under-legitimate" entities. Would a person who visits this category seek for the flags of the Czech Republic? — Hellerick 07:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC) ::Well, I think you need one of the above options or scrap the category. We might as well call the category, according to your suggestion, "Territories that the VexiWiki community agree are disputed", which is slightly ridiculous. I think we need some sort of scheme to know what "disputed" is - either one of my options, or another which somebody comes up with. --Bethel23 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC) :::What about the Category:Red background? What are criteria of "redness"? We have all the shades between orange and brown, which of them are red? Is maroon (Latvia) a shade of red? We need a clear definition, like based on the Pantone number, or the CMYK coordinates. Speaking of the flag of Latvia, currently it is considered to be a part of the Red background category, then why the flag of Austria is not? We need criteria of "backgroundness". And of course we have to rename the category into "Category:Flags that the VexiWiki community agreed to have a red background". But the easiest way is to scrap the category! The same goes for most other categories. ::::Very true. I would say that that category also needs a definition, but I still think think that this category as well needs a definition. Why are you against a definition? --Bethel23 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :::::I just don't feel like I need it, I think common sense and being practical works better than a formal definition. Definitions are cool, I just don't to want to be forced to make something silly by them. After all, the astronomers still can't agree what planet is, but it does not mean that "Category:Planets" and even "Category:Celestial bodies with disputed planetary status" can't exists in an astronomic Wikia. Difficult to be defined does not mean not deserving to exist. — Hellerick 08:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::So do you propose to have a vote on each country that we put in this category? --Bethel23 (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::Just don't bother about it. Let everyone use this category as they want. If two people can't agree about its use in a particular case, let's discuss it in public. The principle of Wiki is well-organised anarchy. — Hellerick 11:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::O.K., that sounds convincing enough to me. Anyway, it has got to be better than having a long huge discussion here. I think that we can have this category, but if there are a whole load of arguments discussions then we should have a definition. What is your opinion, FlagFreak? --Bethel23 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::What would be best in this situation is to get a geographical resource for VexiWiki to get all of its geographical information, so we don't turn ourselves into mindless debaters. Hellerick, I would suggest that you make a special article for disputed territories at VX:A or as a user subpage from User:Hellerick. Please, guys, I don't want VexiWiki's quality to decrease; I want it to increase. Our specialty is flags; let someone else work on geography. ;-) 15:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::But, as I said before, we would disagree with the source - the only time I would accept a source is if we could still make our own decisions on things that we disagree with it. --Bethel23 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) :::Guys, what's so special in this category that makes you so exigent about it? — Hellerick 09:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Guys, I'm working on these unclear entities now (South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh), and I think it would be useful to have them in one category. Just because you can't find a clear definition for it does not mean we should not have it all. Of course I can invent some kind of definition for it (like "territorial administrations whose legitimacy is recognised by less than one half of the UN members") but I don't want to do it, because I feel like it's already pretty well defined by practice. Please don't try to invent scholastic reasons to scrap this category. — Hellerick 02:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ::I think some sort of definition is needed otherwise, as I have said before, you may as well call it "flags that the VexiWiki community agree are disputed". --Bethel23 (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC) :::Having the unrecognised independent states in one category would certainly carry my support: They exist, they have flags, which means we'll have to label them with something anyway, and labelling them with the fully recognised (or "fully recognised with the exception of Liechtenstein" if people so please...) is bound to be more controversial then just labelling them with what they are: disputed. A similar reasoning applies to solely designating them as part of their parent or patron state, or worst of all: ignoring their existence. My sole objection to this is that the term "disputed territories" applies equally well to entities like Kashmir etc., which from reading the discussion, is not what the category is meant for, though this might be the place where people would go looking for them. For convenience sake I would support listing Taiwan with both the disputed as the "normal" nations. Whilst it is perfectly clear that it's political status is disputed I have never yet come across a non mainland-Chinese produced map which didn't depict "Taiwan" as an independent entity; this general acceptance in the field of cartography supposedly makes that people are most likely to search for Taiwan with the recognised countries. -- Karsten vK (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC) ::::My original idea was this category to contain "disputed territories", not only the "under-recognised" countries. Your example about Kashmir is not very appropriate one, because Azad Kashmir ("Free Kashmir") claims to be independent, but the Falklands are. The Falklands/Malvinas are not claimed to be independent by either Argentina, or UK, it's a disputed territory, and its flag was supposed to be included into this category, along with Kashmirs, Kosovos etc. — Hellerick 15:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Point taken, the fact that the entire discussion only evolved around the unrecognised states made me assume this category was meant solely for them, which would have made its name rather awkward. -- Karsten vK (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Compromise O.K., here is what different people want: *FlagFreak: Wants to get rid of this category, and have a geographical resource. *Bethel23: Wants to keep this category, but have a definition for this category (and any others that need a definition), and doesn't want a geo-source. *Hellerick: Wants to keep this category, and doesn't want a definition. (Position on geo-resource unknown). (Maybe you could insert your view on the geo-resource, Hellerick.) I think we need a compromise; my offer would be that we should keep the category with a definition, and we could (I suppose) have a geo-resource, as long as we could revolt against it every now and then :). What do you think? If you don't like the above, suggest your own compromise; otherwise we'll just go round and round in circles all day :). --Bethel23 (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC) * Support Bethel23, this is definitely one of your famous great ideas. ;-) 23:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) * To tell it short: I don't care how you define it as long as it's usable. — Hellerick 14:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) * Okay FlagFreak, I think you can finalise this then. So, we need to have a couple of votes: one to decide the geo-source, and another to decide the definition for this category. I'll let you set those up, FlagFreak :) BTW, I don't want to change VexiWiki:Nations by continent. That is now well defined, and it seems pointless to me to change it to "fit in" with our new geo-source. --Bethel23 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) ::All right, everyone. I'll be setting up something at VexiWiki:Geographic information. If anything wrong's with it, please tell us on its talk page. ;-) 18:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Criteria of primary nations and disputed territories Suggested by Hellerick. 1. UN membership is the highest degree of national recognition; its members de-facto recognize each other (even if they don't have diplomatic relations), they are considered primary nations, and cannot be considered disputed territories. (Examples: China, Israel) 2. Territories governed by authorities who claim to represent a sovereign nation, and not claimed in whole by UN member(s), are considered primary nations as well. (Examples: Vatican; Switzerland prior to joining the UN) :*A weak point. It's difficult to tell whether the Palestinian territories claim to be a sovereign nation (they want to be sovereign, but do they claim to be one already? May PLO (an "organization") be taken for a nation?); and whether Israel claims the territories in whole (they consider the occupation legitimate, but do they claim that the territory currently is under their sovereignty?). — Hellerick 14:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 3. Territories claimed by a primary nation and governed by authorities who don't recognize this claim, are considered disputed territories, unless it's a primary nation. (Examples: Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia, the Falklands) Criteria of primary nations and disputed territories :This seems over-complicated. I would say that non-UN members that are disputed (Taiwan, Kosovo etc.) should go in disputed territories category. No. 2 is weak. --Bethel23 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) ::That's what I propose. But UN membership should not be the only criterion. Nations are not obliged to become UN members. Nr. 2 can be perceived as "recognition by neighbours" criterion. If a country is recognised by its neighbours (i.e. is not claimed by them) it should be taken for a nation too. If Italy recognises Vatican, then it's a country, and it does not matter what China thinks about it. ::Historical anti-examples of Nr.2 criterion are the South-African Bantustans. It's a unique historical case when a country claimed some territories to secede from it, while the international community refused to recognise it. — Hellerick 10:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)